[Advaita-l] Anvaya Vyatireka Method (Was: Re: Fw: Adhyaropa-Apavada Nyaya.)

Siva Senani Nori sivasenani at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 13 14:47:04 CST 2011

Sadanandaji, praNAm.

First, thank you for the pointers to sources. The term is indeed used as such by 
the two great acharyas and the explanation given by you is quite right. However, 
if one looks at the way the same technical terms are used by different Indian 
systems, there seem to be significant differences. Let me establish this from 
the quote texts.

In the first chapter of Vedantapanchadasi, Vidyaranyswami [1] specifically 
states that Atma must be differentiated from the five kosas using the 
Anvaya-vyatireka method. In the next sloka [2], he distinguishes the 
sthUlaSarIra, the gross body from Atma using that logic. As per the logic in 
that sloka

Va) Anvaya: In the dreaming state the gross body is absent but the Atma is 
manifest (on account of its sAkshitva - as explained by the 
commentator Ramakrishna, a disciple of Vidyaranyaswami).
Vb) Vyatireka: In the same state, the Atma is present, but the gross body is not 

(I am unable to make out the difference between a) and b) and was unable to find 
any directionality of causation or such hints either from the Sanskrit 
commentator or the English translator - but that is a different issue, one that 
has to be resolved with a Guru).

Now, if we examine TarkabhAshA, an introductory manual of logic, anvaya and 
vyatireka are established quite differently [3]. That may be summarised as:

Ta) Mountain has fire; as there is smoke on the mountain; since wherever there 
is smoke, there is fire (anvaya)
Tb) also, since whereever there is no fire, there is no smoke. (vyatireka) (This 
is not normally stated as it is unreasonable to use a crooked path when a 
straight path is available).

The key aspect in the above is that the sAdhya (what is to be established) and 
sAdhana (the reason, hetu or symptom which proves the sAdhya) change order when 
we move from anvaya to vyatireka. If we use gross body and Atma in the above 
framework, the third part (vyApti) ought to be written as:

T/Va) wherever there is not gross body, Atma ought to be there, but it is not so 
as in the dream state.
T/Vb) wherever there is not Atma, there ought to be no gross body, but no 
instance of this can be found as Atma is omni-preesnt.

Michale Comans [4] gives three different examples of Anvaya Vyatireka logic used 
in Advaita (I was unable to follow-up the references cited by him because I 
checked it on Google Books and the relevant endnotes page where the references 
were given was out of preview)

1) When X occurs, Y occurs (anvaya); When x does not occur, Y does not occur 
(vyatireka) (kAryakAraNasambandha - used for ascertaining a relation of cause 
and effect by showing that one depends on the other - in the above case Y 
depends on X).
2) When X occurs, Y occurs (anvaya); When Y is absent, X is absent (vyatireka) - 
this is the Nyaya construct (vyApyavyApakasambandha - used to infer the 
existence of one from the existence of the other - in the above case we infer Y 
from X)
3) When X occurs; Y occurs (anvaya); When X occurs, Y is absent (vyatireka) - 
Comans says this is to show that X is independent of Y.

What is interesting is that the above list does not cover the way in which it is 
used in the Pancadasi (this is not to criticise Comans - he restricted himself 
to Advaita Vedanta).

There are more references, in Mahabhashya, Buddhist literature (Dignaga) etc. 
but obviously this takes much more than a weekend for somebody like me. At this 
stage my submission is: a) the same term is used significantly differently by 
different darSanas, b) within advaita vedanta the phrase seems to have different 
meanings with different authors. 

I am keen to know the historical development of these differences and would be 
thankful for any pointers.

N. Siva Senani

[1] अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां पञ्चकोशविवेकतः। स्वात्मानं तत उद्धृत्य परं ब्रह्म 
प्रपद्यते।। 37 ।। 

English translation of above sloka (along with commentary) by N. Dhole:  The 
Supreme Atma is to be differentiated from the five sheaths for which He has a 
predilection or conceit by the methods of Anvaya and Vyatireka. If by the 
discriminating powers of intelligence, one's own Atma be distinguished or 
separated and rendered distinct from the five sheaths, then is discovered his 
condition of everlasting intelligence and bliss, consequently the condition of 
the finite as represented by the Jiva is annihilated and he merges into the 
indication of Brahma, with which he is one.

[2]  अभावे स्थूलदेहस्य स्वप्ने यद्भावमात्मनः । सो%न्वयो 
व्यतिरेकस्तद्भावे%न्यानवभासनम् ।। 38 ।।
In the dreaming state, consciousness belonging to the gross physical body – the 
receptacle of food – (hence foodful) is absent, but the Atma is not wanting in 
manifestibility. He is present as a witness even here and such a condition is 
termed 'Anvaya' or connection as cause and effect. ... while that other 
condition in which the active manifestibility of the Atma continues in the 
absence of consciousness in the gross physical body [i.e., the consciousness of 
the gross body disappears in spite of the presence of Self] is called 
'Vyatireka' or dissimilitude. By these two methods the Atma is clearly 
discernible to be quite a separate thing from the gross physical body, – the 
foodful sheath.
[3]English translation of Tarkabhasha by Poul Tuxen:
"Here what is to be proved (sādhya) is that the mountain has fire, and the fact 
that (the mountain) has smoke is the reason (hetu). The latter is in 
possession of both positive and negative (concomitance), the concomitance taking 
place both positively and negatively. The positive concomitance (anvayavyāpti) 
runs namely as follows: where there is possession of smoke there is also 
possession of fire, as for instance in the kitchen; for in the kitchen we find 
stated the connexion [i.e. Simultaneous presence – as per a footnote] (anvaya) 
between smoke and fire. In like manner the negative concomitance 
(vyatirekavyāpti) runs: where there is not fire there is not smoke, either, as 
for instance in a pond; for in a pond we find the exclusion (vyatireka) of both 
smoke and fire. 
....Thus the reason 'to have smoke' is in possession of both positive and 
negative concomitance, and likewise other reasons, too, are found with both 
positive and negative concomitance, as for instance a reason like 'to be 
produced' when to 'to be transient' is what is to be proved. [Accordingly:

Sound is transient.
As it is produced.
What is produced is transient, like the jar here. (Positive concomitance). Also,
What is not transient is not produced, like space (Negative concomitance). - 
This part is not found in Tuxen's translation, but is true to the Sanskrit text 
- NSS]"

[4] p364, The Early Method of Advaita.

From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
To: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, February 12, 2011 9:54:42 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Advaita-l] Adhyaropa-Apavada Nyaya.

Shree Siva Senaani Nori - PraNAms
First anvaya vyatireka logic is directly relevant to anumaana vaakyam style. 
The logic is used to separate nithya from anitya vastu and is commonly used in 
Vedanta - Sureswara discusses this exhaustively in the 3rd Chapter which is 
devoted to mahaavaakya vichaara. and Shree Vidyaranya also discusses this in the 

very first chapter of Pancadasi. 

Anvaya involves - one is the other is. 
vyatireka involves - one is not the other is not. 
This logic is used to discriminate what has dependent existence and what has 
independent existence. 

Apply this to ring and gold - stating from ring - for anvaya - - ring is 
(assuming that it is made of gold), gold is. since wherever ring is there gold 
must be there since it is the cause itself manifested as effect. The relation 
between cause and effect is taadaatmya sambandha.
Now apply vyatireka - Rind is not, but gold is still there in the sense if I 
melt the ring, ring form disappears but gold still exists but in a deferent 
form. Therefore vyatireka is not valid. 

From this we establish that existence of gold is independent of being a ring 
while the existence of ring depends on the existence of gold.
We can start from gold reference - gold is ring is and gold is not ring is not. 
In this reference we establish first both are interdependent. The application 
then from the ring point then establishes firmly that ring is dependent on the 
gold but gold does not depend on ring.
In the neti neti - when applying to the pancakoshas - starting from myself - I 
am there, body is there, I am not there body is not there. - both anvaya and 
vyatireka works - establishing the interdependence at this stage.
Then starting from body - body is there I am there and body is not three I am 
still there as in deep sleep state. This establishes it is the body that depends 

on me but I am self-existing entity. 

This is what is involved in tvam padaartha vicaara to establish that I am pure 
existence-consciousness independent of BMI.
One can perhaps come up with anumaana vaakyam with hetu and saadhya and vyaapti 
out of this - but there is no need to complicate that much - since simple 
application would do.
Hope this helps
Hari Om!

--- On Fri, 2/11/11, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com> wrote:

>From: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Fw: [Advaita-l] Adhyaropa-Apavada Nyaya.
>To: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
>Date: Friday, February 11, 2011, 9:30 AM
>Sorry for mis-spelling your name - NSS
>----- Forwarded Message ----
>From: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
>To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta 
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 7:52:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Adhyaropa-Apavada Nyaya.
>> Neti neti, is essentially anvaya vyatireka method to differentiate the subject 
>>I from object this. 
>I was just thinking that after studying tarkabhAshA I am getting some hang of 
>nyAya, but I was unable to understand the above statement of yours. Could you 
>please explain the sense in which you use 'anvaya vyatireka' - specifically, if 

>you are using tarka terminology 
>a) what is the sAdhya here?
>b) what is the vyApti?
>c) what is the hetu?  
>d) what is the paksha?, and
>e) how does parArthAnumAna get established in this case?
>If you are not using the expression as used by tArkikas, I am keen to know how 
>else it is used.
>Best regards
>N. Siva Senani
>Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>To unsubscribe or change your options:
>For assistance, contact:
>listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list